Hornby Announce a Re-tooled Class 91 for 2020

[Bigeddie]

On 19/05/2022 at 22:05, cravensdmufan said:

Yes Andy, though I was worried about attacking a one day old £200 loco!

 

The similar treatment that I gave my Bachmann Co-Cos wasn't so critical as the it didn't matter if I "over filed" and the centre axle ended up slightly loose - the bogie was always going to be good and stable on the outer four wheels.  With a Bo-Bo it's important to file across straight and not take too much off.

 

My advice to owners of the new 91 would be:  if your loco happens to  run well enough over your pointwork  but is just a bit noisy then leave well alone!  Mine dipped quite noticeably on a few points (especially at very low speed) and actually derailed a couple of times.  That's why I decided to try the modification.

Well I received my class 91 durham cathedral just over a week ago, looks great but sadly derails on my 2nd and 3rd radius curves with inclines and at some points . I checked a number of my other locos and they are all fine. Yes, some show a slight wobble but nothing horrific and no other derailments, on close examination i am convinced its the fore/aft inflexible bogie issue mentioned earlier , but I suspect exacerbated hugely by the weight of this unit.

 

i also have a couple of 2020 apt power cars which are not very forgiving ( indeed i tweaked my layout to accommodate them)  both these locos have bogies which pivot fore aft when not pressed onto the main body, but move very little if anything when pressed ( held toward the body)  my other similarly bogied locos ( modern Bachmann , older Hornby or very old triang) all retain some significant forward / aft movement when pressed) of course the vast majority of them have much of the weight ( the motor) directly on a bogie and not pressing the body down onto the bogie.

 

My APT power car handles the curves etc ok, but the class91 will not, the class 91 is a little shorter ( but surely that should if anything help) The only other difference is weight, the class 91 at c600g is 50% heavier than the apt at c400g. Both have most of the weight in the body so its borne by the bogie/ body joint.I suspect this “locks” the bogie more firmly and making the loco very sensitive to imperfect track laying, in particular tighter (2nd radius) curves on incline changes and points.

 

so, sadly i will have to send it back tomorrow ( internet purchase direct from Hornby arrived 11 days ago) interestingly one of the people i spoke to at Hornby mentioned its known to have trouble with 2nd radius curves, pity it does not say that in the advert, on the box, or the instructions. 
 

So i think i put this one down to what some consultants at work used to call “suboptimal” design. Although I’ll never know if my tracklaying was perfect,  would it have coped!

[Pmorgancym]

Just reading the BRM review.  The review seems at odds with the pictures.  The front valance looks awful, poorly fitted and cracked.

[Pete the Elaner]

9 hours ago, Bigeddie said:

 

My APT power car handles the curves etc ok, but the class91 will not, the class 91 is a little shorter ( but surely that should if anything help) The only other difference is weight, the class 91 at c600g is 50% heavier than the apt at c400g. Both have most of the weight in the body so its borne by the bogie/ body joint.I suspect this “locks” the bogie more firmly and making the loco very sensitive to imperfect track laying, in particular tighter (2nd radius) curves on incline changes and points.

 

so, sadly i will have to send it back tomorrow ( internet purchase direct from Hornby arrived 11 days ago) interestingly one of the people i spoke to at Hornby mentioned its known to have trouble with 2nd radius curves, pity it does not say that in the advert, on the box, or the instructions. 
 

 

This is obviously not good. It sounds like there is a genuine issue with this which was not identified during production/testing, but it makes me wonder that as some of us would welcome more accurate models which won't run around tight curves, others may want them to run around tight curves at the expense of a little accuracy.

 

As for the person you spoke to who knew about the issue, don't be too judgmental. They may not have known about it until a customer reported it. By that time, the models were out there.

[adb968008]

38 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

This is obviously not good. It sounds like there is a genuine issue with this which was not identified during production/testing, but it makes me wonder that as some of us would welcome more accurate models which won't run around tight curves, others may want them to run around tight curves at the expense of a little accuracy.

 

As for the person you spoke to who knew about the issue, don't be too judgmental. They may not have known about it until a customer reported it. By that time, the models were out there.

I think Hornby more than any other name would be expected to produce models that work on trainset track of almost all considerations, considering its name is the face of the toy market for railways. Other brands may get away with restricted running, though admittedly I am dissapointed in the 18000’s limited curvature capability.

 

 

[VXDH92]

Just got my first Hornby Class 91 and I can report it's very similar to most of the previous comments - looks great and feels good quality, but it just keeps derailing on my layout. I only have large radius points (Peco Code 75) and it doesn't even seem to be the radius that's catching it out anyway - it comes off even when the point is set 'normal / straight'. I think I'm gonna have to email Hornby, but it sounds like they're in denial from previous messages I've read.

 

Shame, because it looks great as a static object!

[wairoa]

I was hoping to get the new Class 91. After reading the comments here and elsewhere I think I shall wait until Hornby get it sorted.

[scouse889]

1 hour ago, wairoa said:

I was hoping to get the new Class 91. After reading the comments here and elsewhere I think I shall wait until Hornby get it sorted.

 

Me too. Against my better judgement I pre-ordered some of the LNER Mk4s and was hoping to pick the loco up after it was released. Very disappointed to read the comments of derailments and running issues, plus finishing issues with the coaches - and now reluctant to spend £200 plus on a loco that might not even stay on the track.

Yes, ok, I could send it back if I get problems, but I just don't understand how this kind of thing would not have been apparent during the design and development process - especially as it has already been pointed out that the designer mentions running issues in the 'beyond the buffers' podcast, so why they didn't make absolutely sure this was solved?

It really is at the stage where I'm left wondering how Hornby are going to muck things up when they announce new things, rather than being able to look forward to the model and follow its development - look at the issues identified about the derailing 800, the poorly-constructed APT (plus its capacitors), and the derailing clunky 91. How will the recently announced Anglia 755 get stuffed up? Or the retooled HSTs?

At least there is the option of keeping the LNER Mk4s (assuming my supplier can supply ones with a decent finish!) and putting a Bachmann 90 at the front!

 

[Ollie K]

Quite a costly loco to get wrong, really. Multiple bright, varied liveries and 'celebrity' one-off locos like 91111 and 91110 make the 91 itself very collectable, and if someone were to want say, an Intercity, GNER and LNER loco, that would potentially necessitate purchases of plenty of matching Mk4s and DVTs to form appropriate trains. Unlike having one set of maroon Mk1s to run behind almost anything.

 

But with the loco clearly having running issues - very odd given Hornby's usual policy of having all their stock compatible with trainset track - it'll certainly put people off making such an investment. 

 

I can't help but wonder how the cancelled Cavalex model would've fared on price, performance and decoration. Also notable that none of the (largely positive) mag reviews of the 91s mentioned much in the way of running problems, which is why I'd doubt there's much appetite at Hornby HQ to re-engineer their newly tooled model.

[scouse889]

On 28/06/2022 at 13:46, scouse889 said:

 

At least there is the option of keeping the LNER Mk4s (assuming my supplier can supply ones with a decent finish!) and putting a Bachmann 90 at the front!

 

 

...and now the Accurascale 89 ahead of a GNER rake! 😁

[hellotojasonisaacs]

4 hours ago, scouse889 said:

 

...and now the Accurascale 89 ahead of a GNER rake! 😁

Here’s hoping they release mk4s in original GNER blue!

[Ncarter2]

6 hours ago, hellotojasonisaacs said:

Here’s hoping they release mk4s in original GNER blue!

I plan to run my GNER 89 at the head on the Intercity ones, when they arrive, pending Hornby ever releasing the original GNER ones. 

[AndrewB7585]

On 30/06/2022 at 12:15, scouse889 said:

 

...and now the Accurascale 89 ahead of a GNER rake! 😁

And the Accurascale 37425 ‘Concrete Bob’.  It was used to drag 3 or 4 sets of LNER 225 from York to Neville Hill after disruption on the ECML

[5944]

On 26/04/2022 at 11:52, 60800 said:

 

The original photographer's name was hidden as this was leaked during 19's rebuild and was all over FB / twitter - EC Grey (with a lot of filler) and patch paints of red, mainly on the corners and grilles;

 

 

Cheers,

  60800

 

Disclaimer - If the original photographer does come forward to claim the image and wants it removing I will happily do so. As it stands, this is the only photo 'out in the wild' of a 91/1 in LNER ownership stripped down, hence my sharing of it for educational use.

Just catching up on this thread. 

 

Original photo is by LNER driver Mick Rice, and was posted by Andy Hannah on his Flickr page.

 

https://flic.kr/p/2iDwzT7

[scouse889]

On 02/07/2022 at 09:52, AndrewB7585 said:

And the Accurascale 37425 ‘Concrete Bob’.  It was used to drag 3 or 4 sets of LNER 225 from York to Neville Hill after disruption on the ECML

 

Good knowledge, thanks for that. Unfortunate that you would still need a Class 91 (albeit you would only need a non-powered one) to replicate this working.... :(

[AndrewB7585]

1 hour ago, scouse889 said:

 

Good knowledge, thanks for that. Unfortunate that you would still need a Class 91 (albeit you would only need a non-powered one) to replicate this working.... :(

That’s true. You’d also have to take liberties with reality as they were dragged from the DVT end -which on the model doesn’t have a coupler, meaning you’d have to drag from the Cl91 end

[scouse889]

1 hour ago, AndrewB7585 said:

That’s true. You’d also have to take liberties with reality as they were dragged from the DVT end -which on the model doesn’t have a coupler, meaning you’d have to drag from the Cl91 end

 

Good excuse for me to buy 37425 though.... I used to see it frequently in both its railfreight construction and RR guises hauling Crewe-Bangor/Holyhead services along the North Wales Coast line. Many a happy memory spent at Llanfairpwll on Anglesey waiting for a 37 to come!! It is nice it has been returned to RR livery - rather like the 91s being repainted in their new LNER livery which takes its inspiration from the original Swallow scheme (how's that for a segway back on topic?!). I would say that I hope that Hornby apply this livery to their model in the future, but I will qualify it by saying I hope that Hornby sort out all the shortcomings with the model and then release this livery on a model with improved running characteristics.

Ever the optimist, I hope that when the two 91s announced earlier this year are finally released, they have sorted the issues. At least I could use 91101 on the LNER MkIVs that I have on order.....!

[TomScrut]

On 02/07/2022 at 09:52, AndrewB7585 said:

And the Accurascale 37425 ‘Concrete Bob’.  It was used to drag 3 or 4 sets of LNER 225 from York to Neville Hill after disruption on the ECML

 

Although that would also need a dead 91.

 

Edit, just realised I wasn't the first to say that, sorry.

Edited July 6, 2022 by TomScrut

[TomScrut]

2 hours ago, scouse889 said:

rather like the 91s being repainted in their new LNER livery which takes its inspiration from the original Swallow scheme (how's that for a segway back on topic?!). I would say that I hope that Hornby apply this livery to their model in the future, but I will qualify it by saying I hope that Hornby sort out all the shortcomings with the model and then release this livery on a model with improved running characteristics.

 

Exactly! I was sorta regretting not getting the LNER rake, but in between the issues with the 91, the Flying Scotsman set being announced (to fall back on) and the DVTs being put back to next year I wasn't too bothered. Then when I saw that new livery I decided I'm having one if they do it and sort the issues out. My first train set was an IC225 one so the livery is a good nostalgic touch to that.

[GraemeWatson]

On 05/06/2022 at 13:33, SkierM said:

Hi All

 

I’ve just taken delivery of a Class 91 “Durham Cathedral”.  Loco looks great and I’ve fitted it with a Dapol Imperium 21 pin DCC chip which seems to perform well.  Loco is smooth running but as others have mentioned is a bit clunky over point work.  My layout has standard Hornby points - the loco is alright running over them bar one where the front axle does noticeably clunk.  I can probably live with it for now as it isn’t horrendous although I would have expected a loco in this price range to cope with all types of point work without any issues.

 

I do own some older Hornby InterCity coaches in the same livery - these resolutely refuse to couple to the loco as the couplings are different.  I have to confess I’ve not come across this type of issue before so was wondering if anyone could advise on the best way to resolve this particular problem - can I easily change the couplings on the loco or coaches or am I going to have to invest in the newer coach models due to be released shortly?

 

Kind regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Same situation as you.

The wider D loop NEM pocket couplings won't work because they foul the hanging bufferbeam detailing on the loco.

As strange as it may seem, my best result was removing the metal hook from the 91 coupling, and turning ir upside down in the loco and that improved coupling capabilities with the Margate era MKIVs.

I can also recommend replacing the wheels in the Margate MKIVs with new Hornby ones. The older ones had quite a lot of pock-marking on the rims with age 

[JackB95]

Kernow have posted on Facebook saying Hornby have advised them of the imminent arrival of R40158 82212 LNER DVT and R40190A 82226 TfW DVT... 👀

[VXDH92]

On 27/06/2022 at 20:01, VXDH92 said:

Just got my first Hornby Class 91 and I can report it's very similar to most of the previous comments - looks great and feels good quality, but it just keeps derailing on my layout. I only have large radius points (Peco Code 75) and it doesn't even seem to be the radius that's catching it out anyway - it comes off even when the point is set 'normal / straight'. I think I'm gonna have to email Hornby, but it sounds like they're in denial from previous messages I've read.

 

Shame, because it looks great as a static object!

 

So I did speak to Hornby and they asked me to return it. I didn't really know what they would do about the jumpy running / derailing given that it seems to be a design fault rather than a defect.

 

Anyway, without any correspondence, they returned the loco to me and the service sheet says 'new bogies fitted'. I've tested it, and it's better; no derailing so far, but it does still go around the layout like it's walking on stilts; hobbling it's way over points, camber changes etc.

 

I will get round to emailing Hornby, partly to thank them, but also to point out that it still looks vary precarious in its operation. I think I'll have a go a reducing those bogie spigots at either end to allow for a little more 'play'.

 

Hope this is useful info to people...

[NewSiding]

That's not very good from Hornby if it still has clunky running over points.

Interesting that the've changed the bogies.

I've not had derailing so seems my problem is not as bad as others, but for my 91002 I've had some clunky running over some points which is when the wheel drops into the dip (flangeway?) by the frog.

It is worse on Peco points but does happen on Hornby points as well.  
The Hornby points look to have a higher raised flangeway than the Peco points so I think that is why.

Perhaps Hornby have only tested it on Hornby track.

I don't have this problem with Dapol 68 which is the only other modern made bo-bo I have.

I don't have a caliper, but the 68 wheels have a larger diameter (14mm I think) than on the 91 (12mm I think). Also the tread is narrower on the 91 than on other locos I have.  I think the combination of smaller diameter and narrower tread means that the wheel cannot bridge the rail gap between the frog nose and the rail starting again (as mentioned by an earlier poster https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/150520-Hornby-announce-a-re-tooled-class-91-for-2020/page/23/#comment-4820160 ) whereas the larger wheels on the 68 can.
The Hornby 60 doesn't have the problem and has larger wheels, diameter 14mm I think and wider tread . Though being co-co helps there as well I expect.

I've tried changing the back to back but that hasn't helped.

I haven't any spare wheels to try so my fix for now is a thin piece of card (from a Peco track packing) cut into a V shape and placed into the flangeway around the frog. It's only needed on one point on my R3 oval anyway.  

I will probably contact Hornby about this.
  
I've looked for new wheels online, but they only say the diameter and not the tread width which I think will be important to resolve this.
    
I'm using code 100 track. Mixture of Hornby and Peco set track and streamline.

[scouse889]

I just can't help but come back to this - isn't it poor that you need "a thin piece of card (from a Peco track packing) cut into a V shape and placed into the flangeway around the frog" to make a £217.99 MRP loco run smoothly on the manufacturer's own track?! If Hornby want to charge tip-top prices, they should be producing tip-top models. It is obvious they had running issues at the design stage with the model ('beyond the buffers' chat with the designer) and it seems they just haven't rectified them properly - and, as such, they have released a model with a pretty significant design flaw.

I really do like these locos and would love one, but the random nature of the running problems being reported coupled with the high price point really does put me off. I've seen them down to the £175 mark so far, so I'll hang on a bit longer I think, and maybe the Flying Scotsman one will have the issue addressed......

[60800]

I'm keeping 91111 and my 91002 which is most of the way to being 91119, but I'll be selling 91118 as the livery just does not match my HST's at all. In the same vein, I've cancelled my Mk4's, with the hope that Hornby will produce the new LNER livery next year.

 

Cheers,

  60800

[scouse889]

1 hour ago, 60800 said:

I'm keeping 91111 and my 91002 which is most of the way to being 91119, but I'll be selling 91118 as the livery just does not match my HST's at all. In the same vein, I've cancelled my Mk4's, with the hope that Hornby will produce the new LNER livery next year.

 

Cheers,

  60800

 

Indeed, the new LNER livery looks very nice, I see there is a complete trainset with 91127 now. Shame that the shades of red on the LNER 91 and HST don't match.